tv [untitled] March 4, 2012 3:00am-3:30am PST
population. >> the jury conducts investigations and publishes findings and recommendations. these reports them become a key part of the civic dialog on how we can make san francisco a better place to live and work. >> i want to encourage anyone that is on the fence, is considering participating as a grand jury member, to do so. >> so if you are interested in our local city government and would like to work with 18 other enthusiastic citizens committed to improving its operations, i encourage you to consider applying for service on the civil grand jury. >> for more information, visit the civil grand jury website at sfgov.org/courts or call
>> good evening and welcome to the february 29th leap year addition of the board of appeals meeting, 2012. the presiding officer is president michael garcia and joining him its vice-president chris hwang, commissioner rich hillis, and we welcome our newest board member, arcelia for toronto -- arcelia hurtado. the bill are also joined by the deputy district attorney. she is sitting to my left and will provide the board with any legal advice this evening. we're also joined by the senior board executive director.
scott sanchez is here, the zoning administrator, and john quan is here representing the department of works. and we are joined by the san francisco entertainment commission appeared at this time, i will go over the boards guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. the board conducts that you turn off all electronic devices. please carry on conversations in the hallway. appellant, permit holders, and department respondents each have seven minutes to present their case, and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments in these seven-minute or three-minute time frames. members of the public -- have three minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. you are not required to submit a
speaker cards or board card when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions and their satisfaction survey cards on the podium for your convenience. if you have any questions about requesting the board's rules or hearing schedules, please speak to staff the after the meeting or call the office. we are located at 1615 mission st., room 300 four. this meeting is to broadcast live on sfgtv cable 78 and rebroadcast on friday. dvd's are available to purchase from sfgtv. if you intend to testify at any of tonight hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do" after you
have been sworn in. any member of the public may speak without waiting these rights pursuant to the sunshine out. do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? great, thank you. commissioners, we will move to item number one, which is public comment. is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on an item nine on two nights calendar? seeing none, public comment is closed. and then we will move to comments from commissioners. >> it is my privilege and honor to move -- to recognize the newest commissioner. her name is arcelia hurtado, and she is the deputy director of the lesbian rights council. prior to joining, she was the
executive director of equal rights advocates, a nonprofit legal organization dedicated to expanding economic and educational opportunities for women and girls. she is a former public defender with the state of california as well as santa clara and san francisco counties. she has served as an adjunct professor at san francisco law school, and the new college school of law, teaching courses in constitutional and criminal law. commissioner hur tanah has served on the boards of numerous professional and nonprofit organizations, including san francisco la rasa, our family coalition and women defenders, where she found a fellowship to support law students pursuing careers in indigent criminal defense. in 2010, she was named a pioneer in justice by the levi strauss
foundation, which recognizes leaders shaping the next wave of social justice work. pretty impressive so far. the commissioner lives with her family in the glen park neighborhood. she was appointed to the board by supervisor david chiu, who last week's for her in. her term begins july 1st. we welcome her. >> thank you. any other commissioner comments or questions? any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we will move on to the adoption of minutes. let's move on to the adoption of the minutes from february 15th, 2012. >> si no comments, i accept -- i move that we accept the comments as written. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. that we will move to calling the
roll. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. movement is adopted. we move to jurisdiction request at subject property 644 morse street and 43 brussels street. letter from a.f. & doland dahlstrom, requestor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over wireless box permits numbers 10wr-0145, which were
issued on january 18th, 2011, and december 21st, 2010, respectively. there were two requestor, so they will get six minutes total. you can wait for the clerk. to see if she is ready with the six minutes. you may begin. >> good afternoon. i am the rich and earn their of this jr request at referred to as af and the documentation. i would like to take this opportunity to request that the appeal timeframe be reopened for the wireless boxes noted in the request. this request was filed on behalf of the neighbors on polk street in question. we feel deprived of our rights and to be informed and what goes on in our neighborhoods, especially of matters that affect our health and
aesthetics of the spaces. we are aware of the appeal. for the permits filed, -- of the appeal time frame for the permit fire, however with all due respect, how could an appeal be fired -- be filed when there was a no dedication during that timeframe. also, there was just as the mandate of wireless permits. that notification was intended to protect people like me and my neighbors from this kind of situation, but there are still no notification. the day after i wrote complained, the street sign had been manipulated -- the day after i complain that the streets and had been manipulated, someone came and fixed it appeared the day after i complained about the signage, they came and moved it. i know i am being heard by somebody. i love living in san francisco. i love the unique freedom that the city provides two individuals and the environment that supports that lifestyle. when a company is allowed to
legally utilize space that is "in the public way" of the city, we as residents rely on yourself to protect our safety. have we seen what this looks like on the street level in person? if not, i would like to invite you over to my home and you can see what this looks like on street level. it is awful. would you want to live directly next to this? is this the standard of living in san francisco? just because the company is allowed to do what they please with in public space, does not necessarily mean it is the best interest of the city or those who live here. i am all for upgrading to 4g networks, but not at the detriment of quality of life or health. the with wireless light pole installations are inconsistent with the values embodied in san
francisco. i thank the board for your time and i wholeheartedly urge you to hear this request thank you. >> good afternoon. pretty much just to add to what she said, i am born here in san francisco. i own my own house. i was very upset to see this happening. i know there are a lot of people on my block who are also upset about this and would like to have fair time to appeal this. i would very much appreciate this to be reopened and for us to take care of this legally and responsibly. thank you president garcia: thank you. director goldstein: we can hear from the permit holder now. she will also get six minutes. >> thank you, president garcia,
commissioners. my name is natasha and i director of government relations for next g networks. we are here today about two permits that are slightly different. there is the one near 43 brussels street and the other near 644 morse street. the permits at brussels street is not particularly relevant anymore, due to the particular location. it is going through the article 5 permitting process, which as you know, perhaps there is extensive notice, protests, further notice, and then again, another board of appeals process that will be available again during the article 25 process. this permit has either been submitted or is in the process of being submitted. i was not able to confirm that. but i do know for sure that this
side is going to day -- this site is going to stay on hold and then go through the article 25 process. is for that reason that we ask you to deny the jurisdiction request because it will have to do with that insulation. in regard to 10wr-0145, it is in regard to those that did not have notice process, which understand that you most likely will grant that today. and that is fine. we put into our comments some substantive issues regarding permits, but i do not feel i need to discuss them here because i expect that we can go into more detail during the appeal timeframe where those issues are more on point. now it is 8 -- an issue of notice, which we know is not part of that process. in regard to just general
community complaints and in regard to these two locations, i spoke with both of the residence prior to this hearing. they both requested to have radiofrequency verification done when the units become functional, so we can verify in their homes that they are in compliance with the sec requirements. there is also under the article 25, new ways of the permits -- noise of the permits. even though 10wr-0145 is under the old permit, i told them that we would do it under the new verification as well so that she can see that we are in compliance with the in house standards. and also with the same -- the other location at 43 brussels street. the unit may not be on until the
firm -- full permit is on. if you have any questions for me about any of the other issues raised, i am happy to answer them. president garcia: ms. ernst. >> yes back president garcia: normally, the ink is drying on the permit. this was almost a year. what was the rush in this? >> it has been a fair amount in the public record that the end users, the carriers, the wholesalers where the carriers are, they have dealt with some issues having to do with their technology. it was uncertain whether the 4g services, because this is 4g ymax services. it was uncertain whether there
would be support for this type of service. and it was determined that there was demand. >> on the brussels street location, with the issue with that permit? you said you were abandoning that because there was a problem. >> right, under the old ordinance, the issue was that you had to have an installation within a one-year timeframe. and when we were working to get the installation complete at that location, a coaxial cable was missed, so the installation was not complete because of the missing cable. we worked out an agreement with the department of public works to be permanent -- we permit that site. >>commissioner fung: it is out,
but not functioning? >> to my knowledge it is not functioning. >> if there are no other questions, i have a question. if we were to grant your permits with the other permits stay out? >> yes, and that is the case even for the wombat is missing the coaxial cable. we asked price for the an extension of that 1-year timeframe. -- we asked twice for the extension of the one-year timeframe. i think we needed an extension of something like five days. it was very minimal. but during the declining of the extension, he did say that we would be allowed to keep the installation up. even as it goes through the pre permitting process. -- epermitting process.
correct and if we do not grant you -- commissioner hillis: and if we do not graduate on the permit 10wr-0145, then it will not be permanent? >> i do not know for sure if it is functional right now. everything has been going on completing that. pg&e has been a bit sluggish bring in that -- bringing that. i cannot recall if the jurisdiction request -- it is suspended when the appeal is filed. that is when everything comes through. if the appeal is filed, it will stay in whatever state is in on that date. >> unless it is functional. >> if it is functional, its
days. >> it stays until it is heard? >> basically, it becomes frozen. and if it is functional, again, we will do the radio -- radiofrequency and noise verification. >> thank you. go ahead. >> just on the note of the radiofrequency issue, you are going to do the assessment at the request of the residence? correct yes. correct you do not know if it is currently -- >> right. the >> you do not know if it is currently functional. >> we do know that we will bring it into compliance with the sec. we have a model that was given to patrik in the department of public health showing it will be in compliance. and because we have other sites with this configuration dropped the city where we responded to
president concerns and did testing, they have come up so low that they barely registered to be there. >> earlier when you were speaking, you talked about how the board's position on jurisdiction requests in the past -- i think the words you uttered were "should the board do that in this case, that is fine." >> right. cracks in a word, are you conceding that jurisdiction -- >> in a word, are you conceding that jurisdiction should be granted? >> under 1109b, there was not a process for jurisdiction requests. yes, we are conceding. >> have you done outreach to the people who have filed, the requestor? it seems the issues are two. one of them has to do with health issues and the other is esthetics. have you talked to them to allay
their fears and help them understand what is offered by this board by law to do with health issues? >> we provided the radiofrequency report as well as the standard in our written comments. because of the low-power nature of this, when there is somebody who is concerned, oftentimes, just having the in home verification is the best and most hands-on way to resolve the concerns. and i said before the hearing today they would like that. regarding the specifics, this is the smallest equipment for this type of technology. and the box will be tier one, except that it is 12 in. instead of 14 in.. it just does not get smaller.
the equipment inside its smaller, but it has to be in a shroud to protect it from the elements. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the department now. again, six minutes. >> good evening, president garcia and members of the board. in both of these situations with both of these permits, the department followed 11-09b of the code. no verification was required. in the process as it relates to 11.09b, verification was not required and planning was not required to review it.
based upon the sec information, the department processed those permits. from a process viewpoint, we deny here. the board recognizes the short coming from article 11.09b and establish article 25 of the public works code, which requires specific review requirements for the planning department depending on the site location, as well as the notification department based on -- notification requirement based on the size of the equipment. in this case, based on article 25, given that they were residential areas, planning to review it cannot based on the size -- to review it, based on the size of the equipment, they plan to review it. however, there was no error
found it and we would ask the commissioners to " -- to uphold the approval. >> i think i just heard that the permit holder conceded that jurisdiction should be granted. are you sticking your position? >> the permit holder can have that perspective, but the department believes it did nothing wrong. >> the permit holder has one year to initiate work, or to fully installe? >> under 11.09b under the department of issuance, the permit holder has one year to install the facility and complete it. >> and does that include the sign off by your department? >> we are determined that the completion is the time when they
can generate equipment specifically. there had been discussion of what is complete. the city ultimately made that determination that this is deemed complete when the facility is able to generate a signal. and if they were not completed within that one--- >> and if there were not completed within that one-year timeframe, what would happen? >> the terms would expire. the applicant would need to refile under article 25 of the public works code. >> and your department has deemed it to be complete? >> as stated by mr. ernst. >> 145. >> correct. it is my destiny that they were able to generate a single unit based on battery backup. >> thank you. >> on the permit that has
expired, what do you do when the work is not completed within a year? is that still a valid outstanding permit at this point, the about -- the brussels street permit? grex the permit is now deemed invalid because it expired. -- >> the permit is now deemed invalid because it expired. >> why are we undertaking a jurisdictional request for a permit that has expired? is there a need to do that? or is it expire? >> it might be that it came up after the briefs. in this case, much like a building permit that has not completed the work and the permits expire, what the department would normally require is to renew it. under this case, we require it to be renewed under article 25, which is a recent mission of application.
>> if they are amenable to a jurisdiction request on the permit that has not expired, i would move -- not necessarily right now. i mean, i would be amenable to doing that one for that one also, given that we do not know the status of the permit at this point. >> well, let's wait and see. >> is there any public comment on this item? if there is, step forward, please. >> [inaudible] >> know. -- no. president garcia: 2 minutes. director goldstein: the president has said it two minutes. >> my name is linda. i live in the hall next to the one that the equipment installed in front of. i want to echo my neighbors sentiment that this is definitely not wanted in our neighborhood. this is a very residential area
where there is an elementary school half a block away. there are young children walking by every day. the fact that we were not notified and we were not able to appeal in a proper time frame because we were not notified in the original -- at the original point. we would like to respectfully urge you to allow us to do so. director goldstein: if you would not mind filling out a speaker cards. >> sure. president garcia: miss ernst, would you come up to the microphone, please? it certainly makes the decision for the board easier if you stipulate to granting jurisdiction on the first one. but i do not think you are accurate when you state that this board has in every case when a 11.09b is ruled that we have granted jurisdiction.
i'm curious as to why he made that comment. >> i believe the first time this process was started was in december of 2010. we received a jurisdiction request. since then, there have been -- off the top of my head, three so far, and this will be the fourth. and those three were granted -- were granted jurisdiction requests for the reason that the standard of review is not whether or not the process was followed. the department of public works did follow the old process. but the granting of the request is a broader-based request of whether the city did something intentionally or not intentionally to provide notice. when you look at an ordinance that did not provide notice, even